Group items tagged

REFLEXIVE METHODOLOGY a lecture series on doing post-positivist social research The Alexander von Humboldt lectures are an initiative of Prof. dr. Huib Ernste Series organisers: MSc. Bas Hendrikx, MSc. Ruben Gielis, MSc. Kathrin Birkel, MSc. Krisztina Varró, dr. Huib Ernste The Department of Human Geography of the Radboud University of Nijmegen cordially invites you to the Alexander von Humboldt Lecture series on the theme of 'Reflexive Methodology'. Under this theme, we will analyse issues of  doing post-positivist social research. In the past decade, 'reflexive methodology' has made increasing appeal to social scientists concerned with the importance and role of interpretation and reflection during the research process. The terms was originally coined by Mats Alvesson and Kaj Sköldberg (2000), In their attempt to refute positivist assumptions about a single reality and the possibility of objective knowledge. Currently, a reflexive approach has come to stand for the recognition that research findings are the result of the interaction between the researcher, the research process, and the empirical material. Accordingly, a reflexive approach implies that scientific research does not produce 'objective' truth, but truth-claims relying on particular assumptions and a necessarily selective perspective on reality. Although reflexivity has become something of a shibboleth - 'no one will brag about being unreflexive' (Crang 2002) - how we can carry out research reflexively remains still a contested issue. No wonder: It is difficult to do justice to both: the fact that social processes are complex and contingent on the one hand, and capturing these social phenomena with a transparent method of selection and analysis, as well as a coherent conceptual vocabulary on the other. According to many, no convincing response has yet been formulated to the above challenge, and accounts labeled 'reflexive' slip easily towards a relativistic, 'anything-goe

Since the classic work of Castells (1972), the 'urban question' has been a focal point for debate among critical urban researchers. Against the background of contemporary debates on globalization and urban restructuring, this article argues that the urban question is currently being redefined as a scale question. The first part of the essay reconstructs the diverse scalar assumptions that were implicit within earlier rounds ofdebate on the urban question and argues that, since the early 1990s, urban researchers have confronted questions of scale with an unprecedented methodological self-reflexivity. Under contemporary conditions of 'glocalization' scholars are systematically rethinking the relations between urban spaces and supraurban processes of capital accumulation, political regulation and social struggle. The second part of the article explores the urban question as a scale question through the lens of Henri Lefebvre's writings on space, scale and state power. The author argues that three aspectsof Lefebvre's work are particularly relevant to the task of reconceptualizing the urban question as a scale question in the current period: (1) his notion of an 'implosion-explosion' of urbanization; (2) his theorization of state spatiality; and (3) his analysis of the politics of scale. The urban remains a fundamental arena of capitalist spatiality, but its social, political and economic dynamics hinge increasingly upon its relations to a wide range of supraurban geographical scales. Lefebvre's approach to sociospatial theory provides a particularly useful source of methodological insights for decoding the scalar dimensions of the urban question in the current era of global, national and local restructuring.

Frame Analysis: Theoretical PreliminariesThomas KönigFrame analysis is neither a full-fledged theoretical paradigm, nor a coherent methodological approach. Rather, frame analyses are a number of related, even though sometimes partially incompatible methods for the analysis of discourses (Scheufele 1999: 118). What unifies these analyses is a (fairly loose) theoretical connection to Goffman's (1974) work on framing. These pages will overview: the theoretical development of frame analyses;the measurement of frames;important conceptsin frame analysis;software suitable to aid frame analysis;a bibliography of frame analysis.Theoretical DevelopmentInitially frame analysis was initially predicted to become a niche method at best. One Contemporary Sociology reviewer complained that Frame Analysis is cumbersome to read (Davis 1975: 603), the other one wondered, if an adequate systematization of frame analysis would be feasible (Gamson 1975: 605). 1Probably the single most important factor for the success of Goffman's frame analysis despite this initial skeptical assessment is its unorthodox appropriation by scholars from very different traditions. Frame analysis is no longer Goffman's frame analysis, but is frequently only loosely connected to the original formulation. Notwithstanding the recurrent symbolic nods to Goffman, today's "frame analysis" spans a number of disparate approaches (D'Angelo 2002; Fisher 1997; Hallahan 1999; Maher 2001: 81f; Scheufele 1999: 103, 118). Three subject areas stand out in the development of frame analyses since Goffman: Management and organizational studies, social movement studies, and media studies. Each subject area has, of course, focused on different areas of framing theory and has approached the subject with different methods. Following the the work of 2002 Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and his associate Amos Tversky (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), management and organizational studies have focused on the behavioral effects of different